Issue #39 September 2024
In the most recent issue, I opined
“As a society, we need to do more to protect young people. Simply supplying a shield of knowledge, self esteem, and resiliency to help protect them from a perpetual stream of heat-seeking advertising and pop culture missiles is insufficient. Someone must also deal with the people launching those missiles.”
I also mentioned Ralph Nader’s book “Children First ! A Parent’s Guide to Fighting Corporate Predators”.
Inspired by Nader’s book, I would sometimes use the following metaphor for animating the importance of containing corporate product promotion to children.
“Imagine that someone is shooting at your children. I mean literally shooting bullets out of a gun at your children. Would you be content to just give your children a shield and hope that it would sufficiently protect them? Or would you also want to do something about the shooter?”
On one occasion, it was suggested to me that this is too disturbing of a metaphor. I was considering not using it anymore – until I stumbled upon a story that was receiving scattered media attention in the United States. I found this story unnerving in a way that I am still not able to fully articulate to my satisfaction. But it did fortify my resolve to remain critical of corporate incursions against children – even if it meant brandishing a viscerally-disturbing metaphor. Unfortunately, it was more than just a metaphor.
In the early summer of 2014, a US company called ProTecht introduced a protective Kevlar blanket which it marketed to shield people from airborne building debris during a tornado or children from bullets during school shootings. The application to school shootings captured most of the media attention. Given the horrible specter of school shootings in the US, we can appreciate the potential value of this product, particularly if it were deployed during a school shooting and saved lives. Parents would be forever grateful.
But there is still a nagging feeling when we consider such a product – an unanswered question, something missing. As a society, is a shield really the best we can do? Might we also want to discuss, advance, and implement science-based policy on gun control? Some of the media coverage seemed to have conceded that these larger issues are beyond intervention, and that supplying shields truly is the best we can do. But making such a concession just does not sit well, does it? On ProTecht’s website, in 2014, there was a poignant lament of the tragedy of school shootings, but again, there was something missing. I wrote to ProTecht, acknowledging their concern for gun violence against children, congratulating them on their innovative product, and asked if they had a concurrent advocacy campaign in place to encourage government legislation for stricter gun control. I never heard back. What was missing on their website was any suggestion that these horrors might, at least partially (and probably most effectively), be addressed through the introduction of a supply-side preventative measure such as improved legislation on gun control. Herein lies the danger. Once such a product generates revenue for a company, there is a financial disincentive to do anything to disrupt the market for the product.
Such a troubling story does not inspire hope. We have much work to do on addressing some of our society’s unfathomable, even perverse, priorities. Closer to home, we have much to do to protect our children from the practices of not only various drug industries, but also of those industries targeting young people with the promotion of gambling, unhealthy food, and violent entertainment media. But not all is despair. The harbinger of hope is that policy-enabled supply-side measures have contributed to considerable success in reducing high-risk drug use practices. Just think of how changes in policy and public engagement have changed the way we think about cigarette smoking and drinking and driving over the last few decades.
Recall that in the days leading up to cannabis legalization in Canada, we heard a great deal from health policy organizations about the impact of cannabis use on developing brains. It remains a legitimate concern. Higher levels of THC fuel increased prevalence of dependence and aggregate use. And industry profits. Accordingly, cannabis industry lobbyists push for higher THC levels. Most cannabis users are not asking for this. Nor are they asking for more public product promotion of cannabis. The interest comes from a small but loud contingent of users who are given a megaphone by industry lobbyists. This beckons us to go beyond the impact of cannabis use on developing brains and be equally concerned about the impact of advertising on impressionable minds. This is why health policy organizations asked for a total ban on both cannabis advertising and cannabis industry lobbying. That didn’t happen. The industry could not have imagined more effective advertising than a cannabis storefront on many urban street corners. Remember the many large billboards in our urban landscapes that once advertised cigarettes. And consider the ones that still advertise alcohol. Now think of billboards with an entrance to make a cannabis purchase. I recently heard a story of someone whose children walk past five cannabis stores between home and school every day. Our government also threw its doors wide open to the cannabis lobbyists. The outcomes remain to be seen. I’ll close with a quote from Carnegie Mellon University’s Jonathon Caulkins:
“We are going, in the United States, to legalize marijuana nationally, and roughly along the alcohol model, and there’s a good chance that people in 25 to 40 years will look back and shake their heads and ask, what were you thinking? Why did you think it was a good idea to create an industry of titans to market this drug?”
Mike DeVillaer
Hamilton Ontario Canada
September 26 2024
This issue is a modified and updated excerpt from “Buzz Kill: The Corporatization of Cannabis”. You can order it from
Black Rose Books: https://blackrosebooks.com/products/buzz-kill-michael-r-devillaer
Distributors: Canada / USA: University of Toronto Press utpbooks@utpress.utoronto.ca
UK / International: Central Books contactus@centralbooks.com
Or at your local bookstore. They will appreciate your support.